The unadjusted 2016 exit polls show large discrepancies to the recorded vote in battleground states. This analysis compares the Ohio reported vote, the Edison Research unadjusted exit poll, the CNN adjusted poll (matched to the recorded vote) and the True Vote Model.

Clinton led the average of nine pre-election national polls by 45.8-43.3%.Trump led Independents by 43.6-33.8%.

Trump won the OH reported vote by 52.0-43.5%. But according to the CNN published exit poll, he won by just 47.1-47.0%. Does the discrepancy indicate that votes were rigged for Trump? Not at all, the evidence indicates that he won OH as reported.

The unadjusted exit poll discrepancies are largely due to the implausible difference between Trump and Clinton’s share of Independents. To match the CNN published exit poll, Clinton must have won the Independent vote by an implausible 50-34%.

Ever since the 2000 election, exit poll naysayers have stated a) Edison Research claims that their exit polls aren’t designed to detect fraud; b) the sample size is too small and c) the questions are too lengthy and complex.

Sample size? Big enough so that the MoE was exceeded in 12 of 25 Democratic primary exit polls – a 1 in 4 trillion probability. Questions too lengthy? You mean asking males and females who they voted for? Not designed to detect fraud? That is true; unadjusted exit polls are adjusted to match the corrupt recorded vote – and cover up the fraud

In his recent NY Times article, Nate Cohn reverts to classic exit poll naysayer talking points that have been debunked long ago. I thought I was done debunking their posts.

According to Nate, the exit polls are always wrong. He maintains that they were wrong in the 2000 and 2004 elections and that Bush won both elections fairly; there was no fraud. It is common knowledge that Bush stole both elections. This has been proven by the mathematically impossible exit poll discrepancies, the True Vote Model and Cumulative Vote Share analysis. Unadjusted exit polls were close to the True Vote. The discrepancies were due to corrupted vote counts, not bad polling.

It is important to keep in mind that historical evidence of fraud is based on a recurring pattern: The vast majority of exit polls that exceed the margin of error favor the progressive candidate. Virtually all exit polls shift to the establishment candidate in the recorded vote.

Nate ignores or is ignorant of the overwhelming evidence proving that the Democratic primary was stolen. He cannot refute these facts:

–Sanders’ exit poll share exceeded his recorded share in 24 of the 26 primaries exit polled. The probability is 1 in 190,000.

– Sanders exit poll share exceed his recorded share by more than the margin of error in 11 of the 26 primaries. The probability is 1 in 77 billion.

Is the exit poll shift to Clinton just pure luck? Or is something else going on? Let’s review and debunk Nate’s comments.

I didn’t write about this during the primary season, since I didn’t want to dignify the views of conspiracy theorists. But they’re still going. The exit polls are a sufficient basis to make this determination, in the eyes of the conspiracists, because exit polls are used internationally to detect fraud. They’re supposedly very accurate.

Note the immediate use of the term conspiracy theorist; a sure sign of an Internet troll. But Nate is not a troll; he’s writing for the NY Times.

All of this starts with a basic misconception: that the exit polls are usually pretty good. I have no idea where this idea comes from, because everyone who knows anything about early exit polls knows that they’re not great. The 2000,2004, 2008- exit polls were biased. Kerry and Gore both lost.

In 2004, the exit polls showed John Kerry easily winning an election he clearly lost — with both a huge error and systematic bias outside of the “margin of error.” The national exits showed Kerry ahead by three points (and keep in mind the sample size on the national exit is vastly larger than for a state primary exit poll) and leading in states like Virginia, Ohio and Florida — which all went to George W. Bush.

Kerry clearly won. It wasn’t even close. Nate believes the exit polls were wrong and that Bush won fairly. These posts prove that Kerry won.

The allegations are remarkably consistent. They go like this: Mr. Sanders did better in the early exit polls than he did in the final result. Therefore, Mrs. Clinton probably stole the election. The exit polls are a sufficient basis to make this determination, in the eyes of the conspiracists, because exit polls are used internationally to detect fraud. They’re supposedly very accurate and “well controlled” (where this phrase comes from, I don’t know). Sources for exit poll error — even more than in an ordinary poll: Differential non-response, Cluster effects, Absentee voters aren’t included Exit polls can be very inaccurate and systematically biased.

Nate claims he has no idea where the “misconception” that exit polls are accurate comes from. They come from the experts cited below – not from the controlled MSM. Nate calls these experts “conspiracy theorists”; his basic misconception is assuming there is no such thing as Election Fraud.

Nate states that the sources of exit poll errors are greater than in “ordinary” polls. His claim that exit poll non-response, cluster effect and absentee voters are not considered is false; these factors are used in weighting the sample. An exit poll cluster effect (typically 30%) is added to the theoretical margin of error. And of course, in an exit poll, unlike pre-election polls, voters are asked who they just voted for.

What about sources and methods of election fraud? What is the motivation of the MSM in forcing the unadjusted exit polls to match corrupted vote counts?

Exit polls can be very inaccurate and systematically biased. With this kind of history, you can see why no one who studies the exit polls believes that they can be used as an indicator of fraud in the way the conspiracy theorists do.

Nate expects rational viewers to believe that experts who study exit polls are conspiracy theorists because they have concluded that the polls are indicators of fraud. Does he truly believe these experts are delusional and/or incompetent in assuming that exit poll discrepancies (which exceed the margin of error) raise legitimate questions as to the likelihood of fraud?

Pollsters ask males and females in foreign countries the question “Who Did You Vote For” to check for possible election fraud. They ask the same question in the U.S. The difference is that here they essentially cover-up the fraud by adjusting the responses to match the recorded vote – and always assume ZERO fraud.

Why are exit polls tilted toward Sanders? Young voters are far more likely to complete the polls. Voter registration files are just starting to be updated. Sanders is a candidate with historic strength among young voters.

That is pure conjecture and not based on factual evidence.But this is not conjecture: more Sanders than Clinton voters (young and old) were disenfranchised. But Nate doesn’t mention that fact? What about all of those independents and Democrats who never got to the polls because of voided registrations, long lines and closing of polling places?

There are other challenges with exit polls in the primaries. Usually, the exit polls select precincts by partisanship — ensuring a good balance of Democratic and Republican precincts. This helps in a general election. It doesn’t do as much good in a primary.

Nate does not know how the precincts were selected. It’s proprietary information. Why won’t the exit pollsters tell us which precincts were polled ? Since they don’t, we must assume they have something to hide. The pollsters (actually the MSM) do not want analysts to compare precinct votes to the exit poll response. It’s clear that they might find discrepancies which indicate a high probability of vote miscounts.

Exit poll naysayers won’t dare mention the THIRD-RAIL of American politics: Election Fraud. They do not even concede that election fraud is a likely cause of the exit poll discrepancies. They just assume the exit polls are always wrong and that there is no such thing as Election Fraud. How ridiculous is that?

Election Fraud is as American as apple pie. Read what the true experts have to say who you arrogantly dismiss as Conspiracy Theorists. The true conspiracy is not a theory but a fact: the mainstream media is complicit in covering up Election Fraud.

Before the advent of the personal computer, mainframes and minicomputers were programmed by professionals in major corporations. Programming was hard and time consuming. Computers were used by scientists, engineers, investment bankers and other analytical professionals.

In 1965, my first job was as a numerical control FORTRAN programmer in the aerospace industry. I programmed the 7094 IBM mainframe , a 512k machine which required a full floor of office space. It was on rental from the U.S. Navy.

Computers grew in power and were smaller in size during the 1970s. I was hired by Merrill Lynch on Wall Street as a manager of software development in Investment Banking. I continued to program in FORTRAN- this time for financial models.

In the late 1970s, the personal computer became available. They were considered as toys (myself included) until the first spreadsheets appeared. All of a sudden, I could do simple calculations without having to write complex programs. When Lotus 1-2-3 became available in 1982, it had limited programming features (“macros”). I immediately began to convert my financial FORTRAN programs to spreadsheets – and added graphics capabilities. I continued to use Lotus as a consultant to major domestic and foreign corporations until 1995 when I switched to Excel (which was used along with C++ for advanced financial data base and derivatives models).

MATRIX OF DECEIT

A matrix is just a table (rectangular array) of numbers. In a spreadsheet, the table consists of data in cells (column, row). Basic arithmetic operations applied to the matrix are sufficient to prove election fraud.

Actual, raw unadjusted exit poll results are changed in all matrix crosstabs (demographics) to conform to the recorded vote. The crosstab “How Did You Vote in the previous election?” has proved to be the Smoking Gunin detecting presidential election fraud from 1988-2008.

2000

Gore won the unadjusted National Exit Poll and State Exit Poll aggregate which indicated that he won by 3-5 million votes, not the 540,000 recorded. But the National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote. The election was stolen – big time.

2000 Unadjusted National Exit Poll (13,108 respondents)

Total

Gore

Bush

Nader

Other

13,108

6,359

6,065

523

161

48.51%

46.27%

3.99%

1.23%

2000 Unadjusted State Exit Poll Aggregate

Voted ’96

Turnout

Mix

Gore

Bush

Other

New/DNV

17,732

16%

52%

43%

5%

Clinton

48,763

44%

87%

10%

3%

Dole

35,464

32%

7%

91%

2%

Perot/other

8,866

8%

23%

65%

12%

Total cast

110,825

100%

50.68%

45.60%

3.72%

110,825

56,166

50,536

4,123

2000 National Exit Poll (forced to match recorded vote)

Voted ’96

Turnout

Mix

Gore

Bush

Other

New/DNV

18,982

18%

52%

43%

5%

Clinton

42,183

40%

87%

10%

3%

Dole

35,856

34%

7%

91%

2%

Other

8,437

8%

23%

65%

12%

Total

105,458

100%

48.38%

47.87%

3.75%

105,458

51,004

50,456

3,998

2004

Kerry won the unadjusted National Exit Poll and State Exit Poll aggregate by 6 million votes. He won the Tue Vote Model (assuming a plausible estimate of returning 2000 election voters) by 10 million votes with a 53.7% share.

The Final National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote (Bush won by 3 million). The election was stolen – big time.

2004 Unadjusted National Exit Poll (13,660 respondents)

Kerry

Bush

Other

13,660

7,064

6,414

182

share

51.71%

47.0%

1.3%

2004 Unadjusted National Exit Poll

(implausible 2000 returning voters; Gore won by 4-6m)

2000

Voted

Mix

Kerry

Bush

Other

DNV

23,116

18.38%

57%

41%

2%

Gore

48,248

38.37%

91%

8%

1%

Bush

49,670

39.50%

10%

90%

0%

Other

4,703

3.74%

64%

17%

19%

Total

125,737

100%

51.8%

46.8%

1.5%

125,737

65,070

58,829

1,838

2004 Final Adjusted National Exit Poll

(Impossible Bush 2000 voter turnout; forced to match recorded vote)

2000

Turnout

Mix

Kerry

Bush

Other

Alive

Turnout

DNV

20,790

17%

54%

44%

2%

–

–

Gore

45,249

37%

90%

10%

0%

48,454

93%

Bush

52,586

43%

9%

91%

0%

47,933

110%

Other

3,669

3%

64%

14%

22%

3,798

97%

Total

122,294

100%

48.27%

50.73%

1.00%

100,185

94%

59,031

62,040

1,223

2008

Obama won the unadjusted National Exit Poll with 61% (a 30 million vote margin) and the State Exit Poll aggregate with 58% (a 23 million vote margin). But the Final National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded 9.5 million vote margin. The landslide was denied.

The probability of winning each state is required to calculate the probability of winning 270 Electoral Votes. The state win probability is based on the two-party exit poll (or recorded vote share) and the margin of error (MoE). Win Prob = NORMDIST (vote share, 0.5, MoE/1.96, true)The Electoral Vote Win probability is the number of winning simulation trials / 500.

2000 Gore defeated Bush by 544,000 recorded votes but lost the electoral vote. But Gore won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 50.7-45.6%. Given 105.4 million recorded votes, the exit polls indicated that Gore won by at least 5 million votes. He led the exit polls in 11 states with 154 electoral votes which all flipped to Bush. If Gore had captured just ONE of the 11 states, he would have won the election.2004Bush had 50.5 million recorded votes in 2000. Kerry had a 48.3% recorded share and 252 EV and lost by 62-59 million votes.

In order to match the 2004 recorded vote, the 2004 National Exit Poll indicated an impossible 110% turnout of 52.6 million living Bush 2000 voters in 2004.

Uunadjusted state and national exit polls indicated that Kerry had 51-52% and won by 5-6 million votes with 349 EV. Seven states with 97 electoral votes flipped from Kerry in the exit polls to Bush in the recorded vote: CO,FL,IA,MO,NV,OH,VA. Kerry would have had 349 electoral votes had he won the states. The True Vote Model indicates that he had 53.5% and won by 10 million votes.

2008
Obama had a 52.9% recorded share (a 9.5 million vote margin) and 365 electoral votes. But he had a 58% share in the unadjusted state exit polls (matched by the True Vote Model) which indicates that he won by 23 million votes and had 420 electoral votes.

Obama led the unadjusted 2008 National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents, 2% MoE) by 61-37%, an astounding 30 million vote margin.

2012
Only 31 states were exit polled. The unadjusted state and national exit polls were not available so the State True Vote Model shares were used for the simulation. Obama had 55% of early voters and 59% of 11.7 million late provisional and absentee ballots. But he lost on Election Day by 50-48% for a 51-47% total margin. The True Vote Model indicated that he had at least 55%.

1) 60% turnout of Obama and Romney voters, 2) Hagan had 92% of returning Obama voters 3) Willis had 90% of Romney voters4) Hagan had 47% and Willis 45% of voters who did not vote in 2012. Hagan wins by 155,000 votes: 50.9-45.9%

Sensitivity analysis I: Returning vote shares

Worst case scenario: Hagan has 88% of returning Obama and 5% of Romney voters.Hagan loses by 4,000 votes with 48.1%.

Best case scenario: Hagan has 96% of Obama and 9% of Romney voters.Hagan wins by 314,000 votes with 53.6%.

Sensitivity analysis II: 2012 voter turnout in 2014

Worst case scenario: 58% of Obama and 62% of Romney voters return in 2014.Hagan wins by 81,000 votes with 49.6%.

Best case scenario: 62% of Obama and 58% of Romney voters return in 2014.Hagan wins by 230,000 votes with 52.1%.

Clarkson has found that computer-reported results from larger precincts in the state, with more than 500 voters, show a “consistent” statistical increase in votes for the Republican candidates in general elections (and even a similar increase for establishment GOP candidates versus ‘Tea Party’ challengers during Republican primaries). Those results run counter to conventional political wisdom that Democrats perform better in larger, more urban precincts.

II True Vote Model

Obama lost Kansas in 2012 by 252,000 recorded votes (59.7-38.0%).

Base Case Assumptions1) 66% turnout of Obama and Romney voters, 2) Davis had 93% of returning Obama voters 3) Brownback had 78% of Romney voters4) Davis had 50% and Brownback 40% of voters who did not vote in 2012.

Base Case Scenario: Davis wins by 1,000 votes: 48.1-48.0%Note: Obama had 42% in the final pre-election poll. If Obama’s True Vote was 41%, then Davis won the True Vote by 50-46%.

Sensitivity analysis I: Returning vote shares

Worst case scenario: Davis has 89% of returning Obama and 17% of Romney voters.Davis loses by 40,000 votes with 45.7%.

Best case scenario: Davis has 97% of Obama and 21% of Romney voters.Davis wins by 41,000 votes with 50.5%.

Sensitivity analysis II: 2012 voter turnout in 2014

Worst case scenario: 64% of Obama and 68% of Romney voters return in 2014.Davis loses by 15,000 votes with 47.1%.

Best case scenario: 68% of Obama and 64% of Romney voters return in 2014.Davis wins by 17,000 votes with 49.0%.